COMMENT
Is Apple fit for business? CIOs say no, but silicon.com's readers remain divided.
While Mac user figures continue to inch upwards, businesses are still resisting Apple's charms.
In a recent silicon.com CIO Jury, just one of the IT chiefs surveyed said the recent release of Snow Leopard will make their business more likely to adopt Apple desktops, while other CIOs outlined to silicon.com why they believe Mac OS X isn't floating the enterprise boat.
silicon.com readers weighed in on the points raised by the CIOs, raising questions over whether the Apple ecosystem is sufficiently diverse for the enterprise.
Reader and embedded Linux developer, S Macdonald, asked: "How about companies not wanting to be tied to a single supplier of their computer technology? Can't really get competing bids from Apple against Apple."
However, it was the question of price that got most readers talking, with a number echoing CIOs' sentiments that the costs associated with switching from PC to Mac are simply too high.
Despite saying Macs are "so much better" than their Windows counterparts, one reader maintained cost remains a barrier to companies seeking to adopt Apple: "I love my Mac. It has changed the way I work but I am a one-man band. Changing a huge company would just cost so much," Galvin Green said.
"The cost is huge. You have to repurchase every copy of Office, and what about those productivity applications that don't have a Mac equivalent? The majority of businesses have at least one if not multiple apps like that. The upfront cost of purchasing Macs vs equivalent PCs is huge," said an Atlanta reader. "The question is what would the payback for doing all this be? Would the ROI be worth it?"
Another reader, an IT worker with the nom de plume of Realist, added: "The idea that a full-scale switch is even possible is laughable. Our CIO asked about the proposition and our response was 'If all the expenses you know about don't bother you, keep in mind that we have over 1,500 business critical applications in use, and just under 200 of those are web-based or otherwise cross platform'."
Other silicon.com readers, however, refuted the arguments over cost, saying Mac environments are not as expensive as they have been painted.
"Costs are often cited in these discussions and the arguments are often specious. It is difficult to determine whether the Macintosh platform would be more expensive than Windows because most IT departments and companies have no idea how much Windows is costing them in lost productivity, excessive training costs, costs due to lost data or compromised data because of the faulty/nearly-non-existent Windows security model, and so on", according to reader B Scott Andersen, a software engineer.
Another reader, an iPhone and Mac app developer from San Francisco, added: "Years and years ago it was demonstrated that it costs no more to support a heterogeneous environment of Macs and PCs than it does to support a PC-only environment (and, by the way, it was cheaper to support a Mac-only environment), and by this time that can only be an easier to demonstrate proposition."
Mac vs PC - the battle rages on (photo credit: Jason Parker/CNET)
Some claimed the Mac-phobia was really a way to save IT jobs.
"'Prohibitive upfront costs' - rubbish. The number one reason office IT directors do not upgrade to Macs is because they know which side their bread is buttered on - most workplaces I've seen that run on Macs don't require around-the-clock IT support like Windows ones - an onsite consultant a few times a week is enough, and most simple questions can be answered by email support. IT guys are not about to do themselves out of a job," said a reader from Australia.
"Seems to me that a lot less tech support staff would be required if businesses switched over to the Mac OS so the switch is not so much a matter of initial cost but the loss of jobs in the IT department," a tech support worker from Los Angeles added.
What do you think about the Mac vs PC debate? Let us know by posting a reader comment below.
Comments
There are 21 comments. Join the discussion
1. karen challinor
rather than saying "I want a mac it'll be cheaper and better in the long run"
try saying "I want a mac, it will cost the company £X and give £Y benefit to the company and here is a breakdown of those figures for your perusal"
you might get somewhere then
2. Ted T.
""How about companies not wanting to be tied to a single supplier of their computer technology? Can't really get competing bids from Apple against Apple.""
That is the dumbest anti-Apple argument ever. If you are using Microsoft Windows, you are, wait for it, tied to a single supplier: Microsoft.
There is no doubt that IT hates Apple because a switch to Apple computers would lead to large IT job losses. Broken Windows systems means job security.
3. anonymous
Certainly an overnight transition would be impossible. But a gradual transition would work. The cost of using windows is huge. I look at the days (noy hours) of lost productivity because machines are down, applications crash repeatedly, and networking fails. Companies lose thousands of dollars on windows machines and then they turn around and say Macs are too expensive? What a world.
4. Khürt L Williams
All the arguments about switching costs are true. It would be just as cost prohibitive for an all Mac business to switch to Windows.
But I would argue that starting a business today with only Macs would reap cost reduction benefits in the long run from lowered support and maintenance costs.
We all know that compact fluorescent bulbs cost less to operate and last longer than incandescent bulbs. Yet people still buy traditional light bulbs and keep paying high electric bills. Sometime's its hard to think long term.
I use Windows all day at work but at home I switched completely (there are four Macs in my home) to Macs over the last year. The benefits are immediate and long term. My wife and kids no longer get on my case because they can't print or the computer won't boot or crashed.
I think someone of the "no Mac" argument from IT is due to a lack of knowledge of what a Mac can do. Fear is the motivation for keeping the Mac out.
5. anonymous
At system wide levels the mac's are inherantly inflexible and closed nature of the internal operations makes some tasks, that windows based systems accomplish, nearly impossible to achieve with macs, and sometimes doubling the nesessary complexity. A good example is the linux os because it is free, yet not very widely adopted because of its restricted operating system is similar to mac. People don't seem to realise that the openness of the windows model which is what makes it vurnerable to malicious code is the very thing that makes it flexible and easaly deployable as a system wide solution. At the end of the day it is a comprimise between security and simplicity that will require a horses for courses approach to technological solutions.
6. anonymous
FUD!
One of our team demanded the right to use a Mac on the network a couple of years ago. After a lot of "no we cant" from IT enough pressure was applied and they allowed it.
And stunningly it worked, was stable, linked to everything it had to, interchanged documents perfectly - but required far less IT staff time with patches and security issues.
Then another staff member demanded a Mac to replace their desktop. They used Visio which was not available on MAc - so after some discussion virtualised Windows and Visio was loaded on a Mac for them.
We now offer the choice to staff when their desktop is replaced. However, our "replace in three years" rule has been amended to "replace Windows in 3, Mac in 4" to balance the costs of procurement.
So far Windows has not been chosen much by anyone apart from IT! And IT Helpdesk figures show that they spend far more time per desk on the supporting remaining Windows PCs than the Macs that would "never work".
7. Dilbert
The biggest problem i can see with switching from Windows to Mac is the cost in user training. Most people are familiar with using a PC only a small percentage are familiar with the mac. With 11 years IT experience in Windows and Unix I would need training to support Mac at god only knows what cost (the last we had was on OS 8).
Both OS's are capable of carrying out the same tasks (even for OS specific software you can get emulators).
PC's are just cheaper and there is the choice of hardware which keeps the cost down.
8. Guy Harris
Having made the switch I can tell you all it cost a lot less to buy and maintain a MAC fleet that it does a PC. If one looks at the initial cost of the hardware then yes the cost is higher, however look at the TCO (total cost of ownership) this is where the savings come in. Users require very little support, they become self sufficient very quickly. The reduced need of a series of expensive security tools, etc.
The application architecture is the key that holds companies back - get the apps on the WEB or use Citrix for the stuff you can't. (I would have expected most organisations to be doing this already..)
The issue is fear. The reality is once you switch a user getting them back on Windows will not happen....try it you will see.
I suggest companies run pilots to test this out. They need to think different and innovate - the issue is the traditional IT department may not be up to it, rise the the challenge and give your users what they want. The age of consumerism is here - embrace it. Let users buy their own equipment and use it at work...now that would be radical - maybe a step to far ?
9. George
I use Mac OSX at home and can't really see what is better, only what is different.
I also have an iPhone and like the interface better than Windows Mobile.
However I don't really see the point in businesses spending far more for Macs only to deny themselves access to a massive library of apps which won't run on the Mac OS.
10. AC
Interesting comments on Macs requiring less support...
We run a heterogenous enevironment with Windows, Mac and Linux. We spend more time and money per machine supporting the Macs than we do the rest... By a long way.
11. All work and no play
Macs are for people who want to waste time, not work. Apple has no conception of what software is or does unless it organizes your photographs or enables you to set up playlists. Macs for work? Absolute stupidity to even ask the question.
12. Gradivus
I vaguely remember Steve Jobs saying "Dell make computers for businesses; Apple make computers for people".
I worked in the IT industry for over 30 years, using Windows at work and Mac at home. To me it seems obvious -
Businesses bigger than (say) 50 people should resist the charms of the Mac and kit themselves out with workmanlike PCs. PCs are undoubtedly better than Macs in a large business.
Individuals and families - get a Mac. It's light years ahead of PCs for home use.
13. Babylonian
I am an IT Professional who works with both Macs & PCs for a number of different organisations. The only virus problem I have had to deal with recently was an infected Mac, so I am no longer impressed with Mac security.
I rarely have any of the PC's I am responsible for crash, certainly no more often than the Macs do.
There is so much more software available for PC's, both commercial and open source.
So IMHO there would be no cost saving in switching to Macs, as a good quality well maintained Windows network can be equally reliable, thus no higher maintenance cost. Both Mac hardware & software is more expensive generally, and there would be a massive training cost of staff too if they had to switch to Macs.
I am neither a blind devotee of PCs or Macs...but base my opinion on many years working experience using both systems.
14. mrgr
I was the Atlanta Poster cited in the article. One thing I didn't mention is that we have a mix of about 70% PC's and 30% Mac in our 6 offices. We do a lot of creative work and that is done on MACs. I have seen a lot here about total cost of ownership being lower for a MAC. That is just not true. If all you had deal with was MAC native apps we could run a true comparison. But as I stated in my previous comment we and most business out there have Production Apps that will only work on a Windows based PC and have no MAC equivalent. Also the argument about broken Windows machines is also false. I would have agreed with that a few years ago, but since XP Service pack 2 we see very few security or related issues and those we do see are due to user error. (don't drink coffee over your machine) If a business is seeing that, they are using very old machines or very old versions of Windows. I would actually have to increase my staffing if we switched to MACs to handle of the calls about how to do thing they have been doing for years. The typical office user has 2-3 apps they use on a regular basis and they have been doing it for a long time. Having them switch would be a huge training issue and would decrease productivity for some length of time. Please don't try and tell me, "MACs are so easy they will pick it up immediately" It just won't happen for the vast majority of office workers who are happy with what they have and have their macros and shortcuts memorized. Then there is how to deal with the Windows only Production apps. We could use something like terminal services, but that is just increasing the complexity. I'll end like I did previously. For a switch this large I would have to develop a business plan with and ROI for the CFO and CEO. I ask you, what would my ROI be for doing this?
15. anonymous
I think organisations should just choose whatever software and hardware is best for the job in hand (I think a lot of graphics designers use Macs) as well as considering training costs and if staff are in favour of the change.
16. anonymous
I can't understand this obsession with Mac's as infallible machines.
Mac's do fail, in fact a lot of stuff from Apple does fail and Apple's attitude to failures seems to be admit nothing, tell nothing.
Mac's do get viruses, I know someone who switched to a Mac and within a month had his machine trashed by a virus.
If my P.C. fails I can fix it myself with cheap parts, if my Mac fails I have to pay someone else to fix it with expensive parts.
The argument that Macs need little or no support, just doesn't hold up.
17. Bernie Atkinson
Speaking as someone already running a large heterogeneous Windows , Mac and Linux environment there are some real challenges, most of these challenges can be easily addressed with already available tools, although there is always something waiting in the wings to bite the unwary. This is as true in a Windows multi version environment as it is in a full heterogeneous one.
It's all about choosing the right tool for the job at hand, this discussion is far too simplistic as very few large companies would consider swapping out their entire estate be that Windows or Mac or Liunx for another OS as the cost of change is huge. therefore any CIO asked this simplistic question will reply, No
Change for changes sake is not a good idea and something that most of the software vendors really need to get to grips with, as very rarely is there a return on the investment of changing OS,Office version etc.
However there are very good arguments, that in the right environment, each of the vendors is the correct solution, at the right cost level, If you are organisation of 1000's of employees you are probably already running some form of heterogeneous environment already. Extending this to the end user really does not change the field of play that much. be that Windows, Mac, Linux , VDI, Terminal Services whatever.
There are far too many fan boy's out there who are quite happy to make glib remarks about systems that frankly most of them do not understand or appreciate from a technical or users perspective. If a developer is 10% more productive in a Linux environment the ROI is there, If the graphics designer is 20% more productive on a Mac the ROI is there. It seems fairly pointless to us to force square pegs into round holes, because that's what suits the IT department.
In these financially challenging times achieving better productivity at a lower overall cost is what makes a business successful and could make all the difference to a businesses survival.
it's all about understanding the field and choosing the right tools for the job without prejudice or preconceived ideas clouding our vision.
18. Code Monkey Get Up Get Coffee
I am a software developer and project leader with over 23 years of pro experience with everything from IBM mainframes and extinct DEC minis to the latest Macs and PCs. I was originally a PC partisan, as I felt that the original Macs were cute but overpriced and essentially useless. However, once Apple used their collective head and implemented UNIX With A Human Face (OS X) I was sold. I switched my work and home environments to Apple and have not looked back once. I can develop software without crashing the machine, and work with niche music and art programs on the same computer. Anything I can't do with a GUI program can be accomplished in a real UNIX-style terminal window - Macs are as geeky or as simple as you want them to be.
The innards of the Windows OS are still a rat's nest.
At work I've found myself amused to overhear co-workers complaining about their computer related problems, while I just get things done without thinking about square-one issues. Apple products may cost a bit more up front, but in my experience they more than make up for this in usability and longevity.
(one exception - I still have a place in my heart for my very ancient IBM Thinkpad A31P running XP, the first and last Windows machine I ever owned that just plain worked great and never quit. Too bad - no more IBM laptops, no more XP.)
19. Rob Garner
As a Mac and PC user, I think trying to say one is better than the other is not particularly meaningful, both do similar jobs and and have differences in how they achieve that, like cars.
Is one better than the other, just depends on what you want to do - stretched limos are good for turning up at film premiers not so good for towing a caravan.
20. Alan McK
As a Mac user, I don't want business to switch to Mac infrastructure.
The minute they do, the idiots who waste their time writing viruses and malware will turn their unwanted attention to the Mac platform.
Keeping Mac niche means far better security and far fewer computing hassles.
21. Brian S.
Well well... In the past I would agree that MAC's are better IT wise, simpler to use... idiot proof (almost), but since Windows 7 Microsoft has made leaps and bounds in their stability. (Vista maybenot so much)
Answer me this, why do all (in my company) MAC users run parallel or VM on their MAC? Simple answer, mainstream business aplications are not written for MAC. So why make a swich when 90% of your business apps wont work unless you run a VM?
MAC's generally are for dummies who just need email, web browsing, office apps, and some multimedia work.
Thanks
Brian